question about converting from 96 -> 44.1/48

Discussion in 'Mastering' started by Squaysh, Jul 27, 2004.

  1. Squaysh

    Squaysh Guest

    i am having a bit of a small dilemma and i need some advice. i have recorded some songs on my computer using a motu 828mkII and Logic Express. most of the songs have been recorded in 96 and i am wondering how to convert the whole song and not just individual files down to 44.1 or 48. if i am not mistaken im going to need to use dithering but im still sort of unclear on all of this converting and what not. is the quality of my recordings going to downgrade due to dithering? please show me light at the end of this tunnel. i have spent all summer recording an album with one of my close friends and there is absolutely no time to re-record all of the tracks. thank you and take care.
     
  2. Ben Godin

    Ben Godin Active Member

    I don't have your program for i use Nuendo, but it would be basically file -> export -> mixdown ... or Audio -> Bounce to disk ... or something of that sort, and then when the program asks you what to save as, chose..

    Wav
    16 bit/44.1 KHz
    PCM uncompresses
    Stereo

    or something of that sort... its as easy as that, and the program will convert all the files into a 44.1 KHz mixdown :cool:
     
  3. Squaysh

    Squaysh Guest

    easy enough, but there is no selection for the clock, only bit rate. (8, 16, 24) am i missing something?

    and also, when i do convert to 16 bit and apply dithering, i actually come out with 65kHz. can you explain this?
     
  4. Michael Fossenkemper

    Michael Fossenkemper Distinguished past mastering moderator Well-Known Member

    not sure about logic express, but you might try starting a new session at 44.1 and then importing the files. it should convert them to the 44.1 format, maybe.
     
  5. huub

    huub Guest

    logic, my platinum 5.5 anyway, can't sample convert when bouncing..
    guess you'll need a seperate program..
    the dithering is only for bitrate reducing.
     
  6. huub

    huub Guest

    while we're on the subject:
    how do you mastering guys downsample?..
    i've heard of mastering engineers preferring just going to analog and back again using hiquality converters..
    thanx
    huub
     
  7. Ammitsboel

    Ammitsboel Member

    It depends on the material.
    Sometimes it can be great to downsample analog through the converters.
    But I've had a project where this changed the sound too much in the wrong direction.
    So I did the SRC in the DAW witch was much better in this circumstance.

    Best Regards
     
  8. huub

    huub Guest

    'kay...thanx..
    and what program/algorithm do you use for that?
    huub.
     
  9. Massive Mastering

    Massive Mastering Well-Known Member

    Try Voxengo r8brain. Freeware, stand-alone, quite decent.
     
  10. golli

    golli Active Member

    First remember to back up this album before going into the abyss.
    I'm not familiar with your platform. But you apply dithering when going from 24 to 16.
    You apply anti aliasing when down sampling from 96 to 48/44.1, no dithering there.
    Pro Tools lets you do these things in BTD (Bounce To Disk), it opens up a dialog where you can apply dithering if you want to.
    Try and find a BTD or Process buttons in the File dropdown list
    Your App should have the manual in a help file or whatever. Try that and tell us what you came up with.
     
  11. RAIN0707

    RAIN0707 Guest

    not trying to be an a$$ about this, but if all your files are to be used for is audio then next time simply begin the session at 44.1 - when you downsample from 96k to 44.1 you lose a lot of what you captured - you are basically telling you computer to throw out RANDOM spots of information...or if you absolutely for some reason want to record at a higher sample rate choose 88.2 The computer can much more accurately and easily downsample from 88.2 to 44.1 since it only has to throw out or discard "every other sample" as opposed to "a sample here and a sample there" as with 96k to 44.1 does. Just a thought. :)
     
  12. RAIN0707

    RAIN0707 Guest

    sorry should have clarified this - if all your files are to be used on CD media format, not DVD or any other format where a higher sample rate is required. :)
     
  13. Michael Fossenkemper

    Michael Fossenkemper Distinguished past mastering moderator Well-Known Member

    Well you aren't throwing out random information, it's very predictable. Some processors are said to sound better operating at higher sampling rates. The quality of the conversion is completely dependent on the converter. Some are very good and some suck. The benifit of processing in HD is that the filters are at a much higher freq and as a result the high end is less effected by these filters in the audible range. If you can retain this until the end, then you will reap the benifits.
     
  14. RAIN0707

    RAIN0707 Guest

    I would still say to go 88.2 rather than 96k. I have found that downsampling from 96k to 44.1 as opposed to 88.2 to 44.1 just doesn't sound as good. I run SONAR 3.1 PE with MOTU HD192 and it has been my experience that there really is no logical reason to record at 96k unless you plan on using your files for DVD Audio. As far as retaining the high end and reaping the benefits...I still have yet to meet a project that needed me to use 96k to have a good high end. It just makes no sense considering our audible range is really only about 30hz-16khz on average and not 20-20. Even at 20-20 full range it still doesnt make any sense to me. Just my two cents.
     
  15. Michael Fossenkemper

    Michael Fossenkemper Distinguished past mastering moderator Well-Known Member

    Oh I agree that we can't hear that high. I'm talking about processing at higher sampling rates. Everytime you eq something in the digital domain, there are filters applied to the process. These filters have a ripple effect that you can hear in the audible range. So if you do all of your processing at higher sampling rates, the filters are at a much higher freq range, beyond the audible range. the results are a much smoother high end in the audible range. If say you process at 44.1k, filters are lying in the audible range and you can hear it.
     
  16. dpd

    dpd Active Member

    The SRC process to 44.1 from 96 is definitely NOT random. The signal needs to be interpolated (inserting samples) up to a very high integer multiple, then decimated (removing samples) to 44.1 at a different integer multiple. Therefore, multiple digital filters are required to pull this off which opens the door for artifacts and aliases to appear in the final (converted) spectrum.

    As you stated, SRC to 44.1 from 88.2 is just a simple 2:1 decimation to get to the final spectrum. Inherently a cleaner processing path, far simpler filters, lower clock rates required (less potential for jitter).
     
  17. Reggie

    Reggie Well-Known Member


    I thought all you dudes use fancy outboard analog EQ's. :wink:
    If you know of a good digital EQ to use over a mix; do tell. I have the UAD Cambridge (sucks except as track EQ), and PultecPro (better, but not flexible enough) as well as the TC EQSat (decent for slight changes, fairly sterile without the Saturation). I am probably going to get the UA Precision EQ and give that a whirl. The Pultec and Precision both upsample to 192 i believe? Does that mean it is not necessary to actually upsample the audio file itself?


    BTW, anyone wanna sign my petition for a new standard sample rate (66.15 kHz) for the next standard audio media format to be produced? Just enough above hearing range to get everything that matters through unadulterated, without overburdening our crappy little silicon chips with a processing load they will screw up. :)

    Disclaimer: I am not a mastering engineer.
     
  18. Michael Fossenkemper

    Michael Fossenkemper Distinguished past mastering moderator Well-Known Member

    The weiss eq is great. The algorythmix plug sounds good too.

    That's all we need is another sample rate.
     
  19. lucidwaves

    lucidwaves Guest

    This is Lavry's take on this, correct? But I thought his idea was to just not try and promote 192khz and leave 96khz as a standard. I could be wrong.
     
  20. Michael Fossenkemper

    Michael Fossenkemper Distinguished past mastering moderator Well-Known Member

    That is his view.
     

Share This Page